The first volume of The Canadian Yearbook of International Law/ Annuaire canadien de droit international (CYIL/ACDI) was published in 1963. Anniversaries being a time for reflection, this article examines the Canadian aspect of the CYIL/ACDI’s heritage, aspirations, and contributions on the occasion of its fiftieth year of publication. In addition to indicating its locality, the Canadian identity of the CYIL/ACDI also serves to highlight the journal’s important role as an outlet for scholarship by academics and practitioners based in Canada, resulting in a collection of works that provides insight into the views of Canadians on matters of international law. Mention is also made of the professional value of the CYIL/ACDI in its provision of an authoritative record of Canadian practice in the field.

Le recours aux mesures conservatoires devant la Cour international de Justice (CIJ) a sensiblement augmenté mais une évolution significative a été notée dernièrement. Ces développements mettent en exergue la montée en puissance des juridictions internationals soit du fait de l’immobilisme du Conseil de sécurité, soit en raison d’un effet boule de neige de la multiplication en un temps record des juridictions pénales internationales après la chute du mur de Berlin et de l’effondrement de l’URSS. Destinées à l’origine à preserver les droits des parties et à conserver les preuves lors d’une procédure principale devant la CIJ, les mesures conservatoires sont devenues un véritable instrument au service de la paix et la sécurité internationales. Elles ont, en effet, la priorité sur toutes autres questions portées devant la CIJ et permettent ainsi de réagir rapidement dans les situations d’urgence. Les deux ordonnances en indication de mesures conservatoires prononcées en 2011 consolident d’une part la jurisprudence de la CIJ. Mais elles contribuent d’autre part à l’extension du champ d’application des mesures édictées, mettant ainsi la CIJ sur un pied d’égalité avec le Conseil de sécurité dans son rôle d’organe des Nations Unies (ONU) participant à la réalisation des objectifs de la Charte de l’ONU. Cette concurrence se manifeste au niveau du litige dont le Conseil ou la CIJ peuvent être saisis, mais elle peut se manifester également dans la nature des mesures que la CIJ va édicter et qui ont été dernièrement de nature militaire notamment à travers la création d’une zone démilitarisée, chose qui était traditionnellement du resort du Conseil de sécurité. Ce qui pose la question de la force obligatoire de ces ordonnances et de leur exécution mais aussi un risqué de détournement de procédure qui pourrait paradoxalement refroidir le désir des États de recourir à la Cour mondiale.

This article addresses the unresolved question of the international legal status, and resulting rights, of Omar Khadr — a Canadian national detained by the United States on the battlefield in Afghanistan at the age of fifteen and subsequently incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay. The article focuses primarily on Khadr’s potential status as an “unlawful combatant” and as a child soldier. Acknowledging that there has been a great deal of scholarly debate surrounding these issues, it provides an overview of this debate through the lens of Khadr’s particular case. As the author observes, international law surrounding each aspect of Khadr’s status is far from clear. However, even accepting the existence of controversy and ambiguity surrounding Khadr’s status, the author argues that the United States and Canada have, seemingly, sought to exploit this ambiguity in order to justify disregard for his rights. The article concludes by observing that this approach is, in itself, contrary to the foundational principles of international humanitarian law.

Par l’article 13 de la Convention de 2005 sur la protection et la promotion de la diversité des expressions culturelles, les parties se sont engagées à intégrer la culture dans leurs politiques de développement en vue de créer des conditions propices au développement durable. Si cette disposition marque une étape importante dans l’évolution du droit international de la culture et dans l’affinement de la notion de développement durable, ses effets juridiques sont toutefois susceptibles de se manifester à l’extérieur du champ d’application de la Convention. En effet, l’article 13 pourrait stimuler la prise en compte des valeurs culturelles dans l’interprétation des règles qui incorporent la notion de développement durable et faciliter une articulation harmonieuse — voire une synergie — entre des régimes juridiques distincts. Dans cette perspective, la référence à l’objectif de développement durable inscrite dans le préambule de l’Accord instituant l’Organisation mondiale du commerce semble par exemple offrir une avenue pour atténuer les tensions entre la poursuite des objectifs commerciaux et la prise en compte des preoccupations culturelles. De même, la mention du développement durable dans les normes climatiques peut favoriser une prise en compte des problématiques culturelles dans l’élaboration des stratégies d’adaptation. Comme le suggèrent ces exemples, le lien qui unit désormais la culture au développement durable pourrait donc exercer une influence tangible sur l’évolution de l’ordre juridique mondial.

This article challenges the argument that the World Trade Organization (WTO) is devoid of executive or governing functions and, hence, immune from the regime set out in the International Law Commission’s 2011 Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (RIO). A brief drafting history of the RIO, clarification of the terminology associated with matters of international responsibility, and two hypothetical examples illustrating the potential for WTO responsibility set the stage for the article’s main argument. The author examines the WTO’s nature by analyzing its constituent law, its sui generis mandate and functions, its international legal personality, and its own use of terminology in presenting itself to the world. Critical analysis of RIO Articles 64 (on lex specialis) and 10 (on the existence of a breach of an international obligation), and their application to the WTO, completes the argument. The author thus refutes both the notions that (1) the WTO is exclusively member driven and, hence, not an executive, governing organization but a sui generis entity and (2) the WTO is therefore unable to breach an international obligation and thus immune from the RIO regime. The article concludes that, while a breach by the WTO of an international obligation may be exceedingly rare, it nonetheless — as any international organization — comes within the ambit of the RIO regime. The WTO should therefore consider adjusting its internal rules accordingly.

In its recent decision in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece Intervening), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that Italy had failed to respect immunities enjoyed by Germany under international law when the Italian courts allowed civil actions to be brought against Germany for alleged violations of international human rights law (IHRL) and the law of armed conflict (LOAC) committed during the Second World War. This article evaluates the three arguments raised by Italy to justify its denial of immunity: first, that peremptory norms of international law prevail over international rules on jurisdictional immunities; second, that customary international law recognizes an exception to immunity for serious violations of IHRL or the LOAC; and third, that customary international law recognizes an exception to immunity for torts committed by foreign armed forces on the territory of the forum state in the course of an armed conflict. The author concludes that the ICJ was correct to find that none of these arguments deprived Germany of its right under international law to immunity from the civil jurisdiction of the Italian courts.

In the space of just over ten years, the collection and use of biometric data in the context of international military operations has gone from being virtually unheard of to being an everyday occurrence. The Canadian and US armed forces operating in Afghanistan, for example, have together collected the digital fingerprints, eye scans, and digital photographs of more than 2.5 million Afghans. The introduction of biometrics technology to warfare has undoubtedly increased the security of the armed forces that use it and made it easier for them to kill or capture their enemies. Its effectiveness, reliability, and convenience have all been praised. Due in part to its novelty, however, law and policy relating to the use of biometrics in conflict situations remain underdeveloped. This underdevelopment poses considerable risks for the already vulnerable populations who are being subjected to these programs, potentially including violations of their right to privacy, misuse of their personal data, or their misidentification as enemies or threats. This article weighs these benefits and risks associated with biometrics technology. It analyzes the extent to which law and policy already govern the collection and use of biometrics by armed forces at both the domestic and international levels. It explores why the United States and Canada — the two states whose armed forces appear to be the most heavily engaged in the collection of biometric data abroad — have adopted such different policies with respect to the use of biometrics. It explains why the current international legal and policy vacuum in relation to battlefield biometrics is unacceptable and concludes that the time to discuss best practices is now. Ten non-legally binding guidelines are proposed for consideration and potential adoption by states.

Service of process — Hague Convention on Service Abroad — relationship with Ontario rules of court

Khan Resources Inc v Atomredmetzoloto JSC, 2012 ONSC 1522 (9 March 2012) (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)

At issue in this case, as in the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in Metcalfe Estate v Yamaha Motor Powered Products, also treated in this volume, is the ability of the court to resort to its domestic rules in order to effect service on a foreign defendant where the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (Service Convention) applies.